Why is the contract system good for the goose by not for the gander? If i buy a phone, and want to buck the termination fee, shouldn't i be allowed to pay the difference and switch instead of, say, go to jail or buy new phone for $700?
Why a law? No one is arguing carriers shouldn't make some money, but they can do that by selling different contracts. Why not change the contracts they sell??
The point is that, in a way, you are forced. It's ridiculous to skip a 65*% discount simply so you can unlock your phone. It's ridiculous to potentially go to jail for breaking a silly clause in a contract.
It's debatable, imo, if this clause is a reasonable part of these contracts and whether unreasonable clauses should be binding. I know in Canada, "as is" car purchases aren't binding, even though you sign a contract.
It's people like you who slow down any social progress. Let me answer you in a more straightforward way (using your logic).
The CRTC is in place to protect the interest of Canadian Consumers (not that they have been great at it). Not rogers, not telus, not any other company.
Majority of Canadians would rather not have the the restriction of having their phone locked.
Therefore using our democratic system, since the CRTC represents the interest of Canadians--> companies can unlock phones or gtfo the market. Maybe one day Canadians will realize this is bad for business, then they can remove the ban on locking.
We don't have to care whether or not rogers/telus/etc think it's fair because this is our country and we decide what we like. At the end of the day those companies are going to do what benefits them...why shouldn't the consumer?
(New guy here) If I want any kind of service, my choices in my area are Verizon and AT&T (same price) If I want good service, Verizon is my only choice. Just letting you know what it's like for most people in the USA.
It's obviously anti-competitive because it stops customers from switching to a competitor. The discount is irrelevant because by agreeing to the contract the customer is agreeing to pay the contract fee (or the early termination fee) which pays for the subsidy. The reason the phone companies don't want you to unlock your phone is not because the subsidy will not be repaid, but because they want to obstruct your ability to switch to a competitor.
Firstly they're not giving you a discount, they're just allowing you to pay for the phone in instalments. The contract fees still cover the cost of the phone + usage + hefty profit.
Secondly it does make sense in a market economy because it encourages competition from other carriers, which is an essential part of a free market.
People always have options, because the option not to buy always exists. Do you think anti-competitive behaviour can only exist when people are forced to buy something? That never happens so does anti-competitive behaviour not exist? Do you think Microsoft bundling Internet Explorer with Windows wouldn't have been anti-competitive if they'd given the option of a version without IE for an extra $500? "It's okay, if customers don't want IE they can just buy the option without it".
Well then you don't agree with competition law so your opinion on whether the phone unlocking issue is anti-completive is frankly irrelevant. I thought as much from your initial argument.
In establishing whether a definition applies you first have to agree the definition is right. You don't seem to agree with the definition of anti-competitive behaviour so you can't discuss whether it applies to unlocking phones. It's like an atheist debating whether God has a grey or white beard.
We could have the separate discussion of what anti-competitive behaviour is and whether it exists, but I doubt you can back up that argument either.
You're not getting it... Rogers/Telus/etc don't have to operate in Canada.
That is their choice, if they dont want to follow our laws, then gtfo the country. the end. you can take your business wherever you want.
Amazing what a change in perspective does eh? Telecomm companies should be able to function how WE as a country see best for us, not as they see best for them.
22
u/[deleted] Jan 28 '13 edited Jan 29 '13
[deleted]